ArticleJACC. Advances2025
Management Patterns and Outcomes of Invasive Mechanical Ventilation in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock.
Article in JACC. Advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Moving From the Epidemiology to the Treatment of Respiratory Failure in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock.JACC. Advances · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundApproximately one-half of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) require invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Much of the data regarding IMV management is extrapolated from other populations, and little is known regarding management and outcomes of patients with CS who require IMV.
objectivesThis study aims to provide data on IMV management in a CS-specific cohort.
methodsRetrospective study of 104 patients treated for CS requiring IMV at an academic safety net hospital from 2017 to 2023. Indications for IMV, ventilator settings, and medications were obtained. Outcomes included in-hospital mortality, survival to extubation, and reintubation.
resultsReasons for intubation included ongoing cardiac arrest (37%) and hypoxic respiratory failure (32%). Most were on low-level ventilator support 24 hours after intubation (median fraction of inspired oxygen 40% [IQR: 30%-50%], positive end-expiratory pressure 5 cm H
conclusionsIn this cohort, patients were frequently on minimal ventilator support within 24 hours of intubation, yet spontaneous breathing trials and extubation were delayed due to hemodynamic instability. Rates of failed extubation were comparable to other forms of critical illness. Further research is necessary to determine optimal approaches to ventilator liberation in patients with CS, particularly when hemodynamic derangements or tMCS persist in patients who are otherwise candidates for extubation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.